What Difference Does It Make If Non-Mormons Know The Secrets?

[Palerider]

You are the one questioning why people have to show integrity, I do not.

Why not tell the world if the world knows? Because our integrity, our actions, who we are, isn't based on the world and its wants and desires.

People who have been here a while are aware that you have disdain for the church, that is clear in your posts here. So attempting to call someone else judgemental while you question why they must be honest and not go back on their word is the height of irony.

Please show me in any of my posts on this thread where I have questioned whether people (especially LDS) should show integrity in keeping their covenants or not.

What I have given is a possible reason WHY they do keep their rites in confidence, not whether they should. I have no problem with LDS keeping their promises.

Please try reading for comprehension, I know it helps me a lot.......

Also, I do not have disdain for the church. As I have stated many times it has many great atrributes which I admire.

[jo1952]

Could it also be that the connection with Masonic temple rites is so easily drawn? Many who have studied or been involved with Freemasonry and then are exposed to Mormon temple rites immediately see the similarities. It sort of "steals the thunder" of being able to claim "new, never before (except to the ancients) revealed revelation".

This is just an old rabbit trail argument used against the LDS. Bringing it up again is only evidence that you are versed on your anti-LDS propaganda. It is an argument founded upon vapor.

Regards,

jo

[Palerider]

This is just an old rabbit trail argument used against the LDS. Bringing it up again is only evidence that you are versed on your anti-LDS propaganda. It is an argument founded upon vapor.

Regards,

jo

I suppose that's why when my son went through the temple for the first time he said he was kind of "surprised". I asked him why and he told me that when he was in Junior High, out of curiosity he had been reading a book on the Masons and he was surprised to find so many similarities between the two. I could be much more specific but I don't want to breach any safeguards here.

[jo1952]

I suppose that's why when my son went through the temple for the first time he said he was kind of "surprised". I asked him why and he told me that when he was in Junior High, out of curiosity he had been reading a book on the Masons and he was surprised to find so many similarities between the two. I could be much more specific but I don't want to breach any safeguards here.

Here is your original comment on this thread (my emphasis):

Could it also be that the connection with Masonic temple rites is so easily drawn? Many who have studied or been involved with Freemasonry and then are exposed to Mormon temple rites immediately see the similarities. It sort of "steals the thunder" of being able to claim "new, never before (except to the ancients) revealed revelation".

Looks to me llike you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

As Lance in TX stated:

Yes you are correct, there are a lot of similarities, but that is not much of a surprise when you look at how long Masons have been around. There is a belief that Masons have been around since the beginning of time and that their work can be seen in the Pyramids, the early Jewish Temples, and before. If they were around from the beginning, then why wouldn't their rituals be similar?? That does not mean that they have the same MEANING as when they are done in the Temple, but the actions may be similar.

And LeSellers:

There's a lot more evidence than you allege.

We would be more inclined to give your comments credibility if you checked out your resources and if you didn't make such comments like "It sort of "steals the thunder" of being able to claim "new, never before (except to the ancients) revealed revelation".

Why would it be surprising that rituals remain similar while wording changed depending upon the ordinance involved?

Regards,

jo

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 29 May 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

You are the one questioning why people have to show integrity, I do not.

Why not tell the world if the world knows? Because our integrity, our actions, who we are, isn't based on the world and its wants and desires.

People who have been here a while are aware that you have disdain for the church, that is clear in your posts here. So attempting to call someone else judgemental while you question why they must be honest and not go back on their word is the height of irony.

Please show me in any of my posts on this thread where I have questioned whether people (especially LDS) should show integrity in keeping their covenants or not.

What I have given is a possible reason WHY they do keep their rites in confidence, not whether they should. I have no problem with LDS keeping their promises.

Please try reading for comprehension, I know it helps me a lot.......

Also, I do not have disdain for the church. As I have stated many times it has many great atrributes which I admire.

You entire line of questioning is geared towards asking people why they shouldn't "tell" or in other words, why their oath and promise should mean nothing. If that isn't asking people to give up their integrity I don't know what is. While I am aware of certain sacred ceremonies in other organizations I would respect their view of the importance and sacredness of those ceremonies and I would respect them enough not to ask.

Your line of questioning is insulting along two paralell courses. In the first, you imply that the common knowledge of the ceremony makes our view of its sacredness less so, and therefore any adherence to a promise is unnecessary. Given the source of the ceremony I find it ridiciulous to make an assumption that something God created and asked us to keep sacred and not divulge suddenly becomes less so when some choose to reject their integrity.

Secondly you insult us by presuming that our integrity is so weak and ineffectual that the mere knowledge of the ceremony is sufficient to warrant our rejection of our promise to God.

That does indeed show a great deal of disdain for the church, and a lack of esteem for those who call themselves members of our church.

As has been noted, our promise is with God. It doesn't matter what the world knows, it matters only what we have covenanted to do.

[mfbukowski]

Is it really all about being a good secret-keeper? From my end- now that I know some of these things- are you saying that doesn't actually mean anything, and that wasn't the point in the first place?

The reality is, you don't know anything.

If you haven't been in the context and haven't been there a hundred times or so, with the spirit present- you know absolutely nothing. Knowing the literal content stripped of its sacred context and the layered meaning which only comes where you nearly have it memorized is nothing at all.

It's the difference between looking at a picture of a dried up onion skin and the full experience- tears and all- of peeling a fresh onion layer by layer.

[mfbukowski]

It is not about keeping things secret, it is about keeping things in the right context so that they may be used as they were meant to be used and not instead abused.

Dang, you're good!

[mfbukowski]

For one to know these things without covenant can hamper his faith to the point of preventing him from making the covenants. His hampered faith can be manifest in many ways.

Dang.

So are you!

[ERayR]

I suppose that's why when my son went through the temple for the first time he said he was kind of "surprised". I asked him why and he told me that when he was in Junior High, out of curiosity he had been reading a book on the Masons and he was surprised to find so many similarities between the two. I could be much more specific but I don't want to breach any safeguards here.

As has been pointed out before, which you seem to ignore, it's all about context. A practicing Mason can give you the context in Masonry. A practicing Mormon understands it in the context of Mormon beliefs. All words do not mean the same thing to all people. For instance when I say the word fire does it mean a warm cozy campfire, a raging inferno or that somebody lost their job?

[mfbukowski]

I also read that there was "a belief" that they had "been around" but little to no evidence to support such a proposition. The current Masonic rites that are similar to those of the Mormons were developed in Europe and England in the 16th century as I recall. Most everything going back beyond that is legend.

Uh, yeah, but legends with a lot of basis.

I see parallels in iconography between both masonry and our temple even in Gobekli Tepe which dates to 10 THOUSAND BCE.

In my opinion, modern masonry is just a throwback or revival or- to use more contemporary language- a "ripoff"- of actual ancient principles.

[mfbukowski]

I also find it interesting that Albert Pike- a 33rd degree Mason- as I understand it- and, to Masons, pretty universally recognized as the greatest Masonic scholar, believed or at least stated that Masonry dates back to Solomon's temple.

I know Mike Reed will mention Christian masonic sources from Western New York around the time of Joseph Smith, but for the most part, Masonry's rituals are not in any way "Christian"- but the temple is Christ centered from start to finish.

The same symbolic English alphabet is used by scientists and poets and prophets, but that doesn't mean they are even talking about the same things, or in the same contexts.

Are we practicing masonry when in a court of law we raise our right arm to the "square"?

[Calm]

Uh, yeah, but legends with a lot of basis.

I see parallels in iconography between both masonry and our temple even in Gobekli Tepe which dates to 10 THOUSAND BCE.

In my opinion, modern masonry is just a throwback or revival or- to use more contemporary language- a "ripoff"- of actual ancient principles.

It would be strange imo for people who want to portray a sense of depth or history in their creation would appeal to only original or modern ideas. Makes much more sense to adapt what they understand as ancient and full of mystery and meaning to something they see as needing to convey sacredness and connection with the eternal or even the divine.

Whether or not Masons are a more modern creation, if they were trying to connect themselves with the past their first step would likely to be go look to the past for concepts that could teach their purpose.

Same thing, imo, with what happened with Joseph Smith and if he was inspired to do so by the greatest teacher in creation, then I don't see how this would take away anything from the significance or spirituality of the ceremony or other of his teachings.

[Mars]

I think that unless you *are* a Mason, and can understand the context of the ritual, and then compare it to your own first hand experience of the Temple Endowment, and understand its aims, you're really just shouting from the sidelines.

[mfbukowski]

I think that unless you *are* a Mason, and can understand the context of the ritual, and then compare it to your own first hand experience of the Temple Endowment, and understand its aims, you're really just shouting from the sidelines.

[elguanteloko]

The only good reasons I can think of are to keep others from thinking you are weird (you are ashamed - or that your believes and religion are weird) and a good chance of serious violence because of what you say.

Someone mentioned that it was about context but you can explain the context which Mormons won't do since they can't even talk about the Temple rituals themselves. There's a reason why Mormons have apologists and that's, in part, because silence doesn't make good PR in face of attacks.

Another mentioned that they were commanded but we can be "commanded by God" to do anything without explaining what the reason is so this doesn't answer the question.

Another attempt I've heard is that this is sacred information (this is obviously related to "sacred experiences" people refuse to share) but putting the word "sacred" prior to a noun doesn't explain anything. Many stories in the Bible of angelic visitations, for example, could be counted as sacred but those that had them did share them so this, by itself, isn't an answer.

[Jeff K.]

The only good reasons I can think of are to keep others from thinking you are weird (you are ashamed - or that your believes and religion are weird) and a good chance of serious violence because of what you say.

Someone mentioned that it was about context but you can explain the context which Mormons won't do since they can't even talk about the Temple rituals themselves. There's a reason why Mormons have apologists and that's, in part, because silence doesn't make good PR in face of attacks.

Another mentioned that they were commanded but we can be "commanded by God" to do anything without explaining what the reason is so this doesn't answer the question.

Another attempt I've heard is that this is sacred information (this is obviously related to "sacred experiences" people refuse to share) but putting the word "sacred" prior to a noun doesn't explain anything. Many stories in the Bible of angelic visitations, for example, could be counted as sacred but those that had them did share them so this, by itself, isn't an answer.

Then you aren't thinking very well.

I suggest you review the reasons given earlier.

Sacred means it is something deep and moving and contextually difficult to describe, and very personal. If you have a hard time with those issues then perhaps you have never had a deeply moving experience in your life, and perhaps there is nothing in you that you would describe as deeply personal or difficult to explain. I tend not to believe such things because without those experiences we are nothing more than shells of who we ought to be.

Sacred implies something that you only share with those who would understand and not laugh.

Integrity is something that impels you not to divulge sacred things unless you are released from your promise not to do so.

They are answers and they explain a great deal as to why they aren't shared. You seem to overlook them in order to impugn a more nefarious reason, or to mock. In either case you come across as somewhat shallow for not understanding what most people of all stripes and convictions tend to understand.

[elguanteloko]

Then you aren't thinking very well.

I suggest you review the reasons given earlier.

I did and I explained why they don't work in my post.

Sacred means it is something deep and moving and contextually difficult to describe, and very personal.

I recognize this in my post. I also said why the "context" explanation doesn't solve anything.

If you have a hard time with those issues then perhaps you have never had a deeply moving experience in your life, and perhaps there is nothing in you that you would describe as deeply personal or difficult to explain.

"Difficult to explain" can't be a reason so stop using it. Why isn't it a reason? Because advanced mathematics and logic are also hard to explain but that's no reason to keep them secret from anyone who wishes to know. Many things in science are hard to explain and even feelings are hard to explain by that is not a reason to keep others from knowing it if they were to ask about them. "Deeply personal" here can only mean (if it seeks to have some weight as explanation) that you are ashamed of what happened so as to not want to look weird or awkward when mentioning it. This is why we don't share our sexual experiences with others liberally, for example, but that's not because it's something "deeply personal"; it's just that it's weird and awkward to do. That's also why we don't fart in restaurants where people can easily hear us.

I tend not to believe such things because without those experiences we are nothing more than shells of who we ought to be.

...

Sacred implies something that you only share with those who would understand and not laugh.

I admit this in the post, you genius.

Integrity is something that impels you not to divulge sacred things unless you are released from your promise not to do so.

I already said why the "we are commanded not to do so" doesn't really answer the question. "He told me to" isn't really that profound of an explanation.

They are answers and they explain a great deal as to why they aren't shared. You seem to overlook them in order to impugn a more nefarious reason, or to mock. In either case you come across as somewhat shallow for not understanding what most people of all stripes and convictions tend to understand.

...

[Deborah]

Many stories in the Bible of angelic visitations, for example, could be counted as sacred but those that had them did share them so this, by itself, isn't an answer.

Not all these miraculous events were shared with others at the time. The events themselves are recorded many years later, which indicates that not all were entitled to know of them at the time. Yes, Jesus healed many, but that got around by word of mouth, not by an announcement of Jesus himself or his Apostles.

We have an examples of this in both the Bible and BOM. In the Bible at certain times people were instructed not to tell what Jesus had done. In Ether 3:21 we read "And it came to pass that the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt not suffer these things which ye have seen and heard to go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh; wherefore, ye shall treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it to no man."

[Mars]

There's a reason why Mormons have apologists and that's, in part, because silence doesn't make good PR in face of attacks.

You.

It's also "in part" because Mormons are kind of tired of having their faith attacked, pejorative-critically questioned, and bandied about as lunacy.

But no, you're probably right. The only reason worth mentioning is the gripping fear that someone might think badly of us so we put a PR spin on things...

[ERayR]

The only good reasons I can think of are to keep others from thinking you are weird (you are ashamed - or that your believes and religion are weird) and a good chance of serious violence because of what you say.

But since you are NOT the arbiter of all that is good and right that and a buck and a half will buy you a Pepsi.

[Palerider]

You entire line of questioning is geared towards asking people why they shouldn't "tell" or in other words, why their oath and promise should mean nothing. If that isn't asking people to give up their integrity I don't know what is. While I am aware of certain sacred ceremonies in other organizations I would respect their view of the importance and sacredness of those ceremonies and I would respect them enough not to ask.

Your line of questioning is insulting along two paralell courses. In the first, you imply that the common knowledge of the ceremony makes our view of its sacredness less so, and therefore any adherence to a promise is unnecessary. Given the source of the ceremony I find it ridiciulous to make an assumption that something God created and asked us to keep sacred and not divulge suddenly becomes less so when some choose to reject their integrity.

Secondly you insult us by presuming that our integrity is so weak and ineffectual that the mere knowledge of the ceremony is sufficient to warrant our rejection of our promise to God.

That does indeed show a great deal of disdain for the church, and a lack of esteem for those who call themselves members of our church.

As has been noted, our promise is with God. It doesn't matter what the world knows, it matters only what we have covenanted to do.

You sir, are "barking up the wrong tree". I asked you to show me one instance in this thread where I have encouraged or accused LDS of not keeping their solemn oaths and you have utterly failed and instead continue on with your ranting because you want it to be so. You need me to be your "bad guy" so you can view yourself as justified in being insulted when you are not. Would you like to try again?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Sacred means it is something deep and moving and contextually difficult to describe, and very personal.

I recognize this in my post. I also said why the "context" explanation doesn't solve anything.

There is nothing to be solved beyond your own puerile desire to cause angst. Don't tell us you want to "learn" about what we hold sacred, given you reject anything spiritual. You merely want to know, and as has been shown in your posts, it tends to be to undermine and jeer. There are some swine that are definately not for pearls as the scriptures state clearly.

Quote

If you have a hard time with those issues then perhaps you have never had a deeply moving experience in your life, and perhaps there is nothing in you that you would describe as deeply personal or difficult to explain.

"Difficult to explain" can't be a reason so stop using it. .

Yes it is a valid reason. Its just not the one you like. You are absurdly because you cannot be "accomodated" so you tell us to stop using reasons you do not enjoy. For someone who rejects the spiritual, difficult to explain (in proper context) becomes impossible to explain. Unfortunately you have a failing that makes any perception you have of our religion flawed and therefore beyond your comprehension beyond the literal.

Why isn't it a reason? Because advanced mathematics and logic are also hard to explain but that's no reason to keep them secret from anyone who wishes to know. Many things in science are hard to explain and even feelings are hard to explain by that is not a reason to keep others from knowing it if they were to ask about them.

That is true, but try explaining advanced mathematics to a two year old. They like you get upset because they cannot fathom the reason why those with greater perception and insight tell them they aren't ready. If you need proof of your flawed perception, or proof that you seem to engage in a rather juvenile attitude, lets look at your words.

"Deeply personal" here can only mean (if it seeks to have some weight as explanation) that you are ashamed of what happened so as to not want to look weird or awkward when mentioning it. This is why we don't share our sexual experiences with others liberally, for example, but that's not because it's something "deeply personal"; it's just that it's weird and awkward to do. That's also why we don't fart in restaurants where people can easily hear us

In all of the motivations such as love letters, honeymoons, moments when we hold hands. Private wonderful things only shared with those who have a context of such love and not simply tossed before those without the ability to know what private moments of love, private moments of reverence mean. The only word you can come up with is "shame". Really? I mean really, that is the only thing you can think of... that somehow keeping a moment private is all about shame.

You provide an excellent illustration as to why people don't share the sacred, you are flawed in your ability to understand. Indeed, you seem so emotionally stunted that the only reason you can think of is "shame" when there are a myriad number of reasons for privacy.

In once sense I do thank you for illustrating to the rest of us why we do not openly speak of sacred things before those who are neither mature enough for it, and lack the understanding for spiritual, intimate, and private moments in which people share things, not out of shame but because we know how important they are, and telling you would, unfortunately cheapen those moments.

Quote

Integrity is something that impels you not to divulge sacred things unless you are released from your promise not to do so.

I already said why the "we are commanded not to do so" doesn't really answer the question. "He told me to" isn't really that profound of an explanation.

Ah, but it does, especially when coupled with my earlier answer. The Lord long anticipated people who think as you do.

As I said earlier...

They are answers and they explain a great deal as to why they aren't shared. You seem to overlook them in order to impugn a more nefarious reason, or to mock. In either case you come across as somewhat shallow for not understanding what most people of all stripes and convictions tend to understand.

It really is a shame, not the temple ordinances, but the people who have such a limited depth their only sense is mockery.

[Palerider]

Here is your original comment on this thread (my emphasis):

Could it also be that the connection with Masonic temple rites is so easily drawn? Many who have studied or been involved with Freemasonry and then are exposed to Mormon temple rites immediately see the similarities. It sort of "steals the thunder" of being able to claim "new, never before (except to the ancients) revealed revelation".

Looks to me llike you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

As Lance in TX stated:

Yes you are correct, there are a lot of similarities, but that is not much of a surprise when you look at how long Masons have been around. There is a belief that Masons have been around since the beginning of time and that their work can be seen in the Pyramids, the early Jewish Temples, and before. If they were around from the beginning, then why wouldn't their rituals be similar?? That does not mean that they have the same MEANING as when they are done in the Temple, but the actions may be similar.

And LeSellers

There's a lot more evidence than you allege.

We would be more inclined to give your comments credibility if you checked out your resources and if you didn't make such comments like "It sort of "steals the thunder" of being able to claim "new, never before (except to the ancients) revealed revelation".

Why would it be surprising that rituals remain similar while wording changed depending upon the ordinance involved?

Regards,

jo

So Lance and LeSellers are your "authority"? And you're telling me to "check out my resources"?

Can you show me anything concrete that confirms that the rituals used in either Mormon or Masonic rites in their present form have existed beyond the 16th or 15th centuries?

I love how you guys always want something concrete that spells out specific evidence that something a church leader may have done is questionable, but when the tables are turned "LEGEND" takes on huge significance for you and is offered as nearly proof positive that something you say is valid.

Now that's irony at it's apex.

[cinepro]

A lot of the Mormon secrets- Temple secrets in particular- are out there. On the interwebs. People can know them if they care to.

I don't really know how much I know compared to someone who's actually a Mormon, but I know more than I'm supposed to. Without getting too specific, what difference does it make?

Thanks.

Well, here's what Brigham Young said:

Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.

You can get the "key words, the signs and tokens" off the internet, but you can't get the ordinances themselves, so I'm guessing they won't do you much good.

[elguanteloko]

You.

It's also "in part" because Mormons are kind of tired of having their faith attacked, pejorative-critically questioned, and bandied about as lunacy.

Sure, but think about this: why is Mormon apologetics focused on certain claims and not on others? Is the point to show that it isn't irrational to be a Mormon or is the point to show that it is not-so-crazy to be a mormon? There's a difference in those two and the difference is that of appearance vs. knowledge. As I've seen often here and elsewhere, there's a point where the believer will fall back on "faith" but not on others. When he does and when he does not fall back on faith is what's interesting and what marks the line between faith and apologetics.

But no, you're probably right. The only reason worth mentioning is the gripping fear that someone might think badly of us so we put a PR spin on things...

I'm not saying you guys are distorting anything so the "spin" comes from your mouth, not from mine. That's a stupid thing to say so I don't say it. When one of the most important tasks for the Church is preaching the Gospel it doesn't sound so farfetched that they want reasonably good PR. There's nothing wrong with that by itself. I'm only stating what I think is an explanation and I'm NOT saying it is wrong to behave like that.